The identification of Lord McAlpine on various Twitter accounts, notwithstanding the fact that he was not actually named on BBC's Newsnight, is yet another example of the unrestrained power of social media in the internet age.

Although not an obvious comparison, the identification of Ryan Giggs despite an injunction being in place, in total disregard for the authority of the court, raises all the same issues and concerns in relation to the difficulties in policing what has been to date almost completely unrestrained online dissemination.

While the BBC have absolutely no excuse for what was, at best, a total lapse in journalistic ethics and principles, Lord McAlpine's identity may not have been exposed in the public domain in the past due to the discipline imposed on the mainstream press media by our libel laws.

Indeed, so rampant and potentially serious has the problem of internet publication become that the criminal law is now coming to the fore as being the most potentially effective means of controlling, albeit to a limited extent, the more dangerous and harmful online abuse. However, even the criminal law is having difficulty finding its place, with the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, engaging in a general debate as to how best to balance the need for criminal sanctions against the basic right for freedom of speech.

The suggestion that the criminal law should only apply in circumstances where there has been extensive dissemination in other words where there are a significant number of Twitter followers involved, is in direct contrast to the basic principles of our libel laws, which only require a meaningful extent of publication for a defamatory allegation to be actionable. However, it is true to say that the more high profile the tweeter then the larger their following is likely to be, or perhaps more significantly for a potential Claimant, the more likely they are to be a mark for recovery of damages.

With this in mind, Lord McAlpine has taken the decision to initiate, or at least threaten, legal action against twenty tweeters, with a significant number of followers. This action will no doubt create a degree of panic in the Twitter world at large, by highlighting the financial and other consequences of a thoughtless tweet. Online gossip is likely to be treated with more caution in the future.

Until the Courtney Love case in California, the view of those doing the tweeting was that they could make statements, however outrageous, with impunity. Although the Love case was ultimately settled out of Court, the fact that a payment was made in the state of California which has such an aversion to libel actions and the protection of the notorious SLAPP motions, is significant, in that if legal action can be taken in relation to a defamatory tweet there, it can probably be taken anywhere.

A number of proposals have also been put forward by a House of Commons joint committee which the government is considering in tandem with the new defamation bill, but it remains to be seen whether a consistent and effective approach can be developed as a counter against often reckless and controversial social media networks.

In September legal action was taken by the Brazilian authorities against the head of Google Brazil over the search engine's failure to take down a YouTube video which attacked a mayoral candidate, allegedly in breach of election laws. Not only did this achieve their desired result, it highlighted the fact that search providers and engines do have the ability to remove material and to control the flow of offensive speech.

Google and Facebook have submitted to European privacy and Irish libel laws by establishing European bases in Dublin, thereby increasing their accountability for the abusive conduct on the part of their users.

Certainly Twitter will be at the forefront of libel litigation in the future, regardless of any of the changes proposed in the Defamation Bill and the outcome of any legal action taken by Lord McAlpine against high profile tweeters is likely to have an even more profound impact on the legal landscape than his six figure damages settlements with the BBC and ITV.